It's called "returning taxes to a normal and sustainable level". It's a good thing.

Anyone who is actually serious about the deficit will also acknowledge the only way to make a dent in it is to raise taxes. Cutting spending won't even touch it, unless you're talking about massive defense cuts.

GAT_00:And you completely lost my attention with the Nazi/Socialist thing. Just because the word is in their name doesn't mean they are. See also the relationship between the words "People's," "Democratic," and "Republic" as compared with how free the country is. The more of those in the name, the closer it is to a dictatorship.

whistleridge:GAT_00: whistleridge: GAT_00:I think you're drawing far too fine of a line between Reagan and Metternich. Those two are very nearly the same, Reagan was trying to reinstall an old system. Just because he failed doesn't mean he wasn't a reactionary.

Reactionaries are merely a subset of conservatives.

I can see how you would say that. But I would argue that Reagan himself was relatively moderate - in fact, according to today's spectrum he would be solidly in the Democratic fold. It was the whole slew of people riding in on his coattails like William F. Buckley who were more conservative and even reactionary. Especially those who were basically trying to undo the Civil Rights Act, social security, and Johnson's Great Society. I would say Reagan didn't actually try to undo those things.

I hate to sound pedantic, but I think saying reactionaries are a subset of conservatives is like saying Nazis are a subset of socialists: yes, they look a lot alike on the surface, but the differences are real, substantive, and irreconcilable.

And you completely lost my attention with the Nazi/Socialist thing. Just because the word is in their name doesn't mean they are. See also the relationship between the words "People's," "Democratic," and "Republic" as compared with how free the country is. The more of those in the name, the closer it is to a dictatorship.

That was my point :p

Just because a lot of reactionaries call themselves conservatives and even think of themselves as conservatives doesn't mean they are conservatives. Obama's not a liberal. He's a center-right moderate. Norquist isn't a conservative. He's a piece of shiat racist reactionary. A conservative would someone more like Olympia Snowe.

The definition of a conservative is someone who refuses to change. Norquist is very much a conservative.

Dracolich:GAT_00: And you completely lost my attention with the Nazi/Socialist thing. Just because the word is in their name doesn't mean they are. See also the relationship between the words "People's," "Democratic," and "Republic" as compared with how free the country is. The more of those in the name, the closer it is to a dictatorship.

The president and the senate democrats are offering to make the Bush tax cuts permanent for everyone up to $250,000 of income. If the republicans don't act, then they are clearly saying that the tax cuts that benefit only the wealthy are more important that tax relief for the majority. This is a clear choice with a clear message.

whistleridge:"Even more than getting more revenues, (Democrats) want Republican fingerprints on tax increases so they can smash Republicans in the next series of elections."

No you blithering farkwad, they want to fix our broken finances. But your side is so caught up in the looting and pillaging that they just can't understand that. But the voters do. This past election showed that. And the coming election will show it even more.

No, YOU blithering farkwad, that's exactly what they want. Bush 1's "Read my lips, no new taxes" was thrown back in his face the instant he caved and agreed to raise taxes. The dems beat him with it at every opportunity in his reelection campaign. Any Republican thinking he can cut a deal with these people and not have it used against him is delusional and should be challenged in the primary because he's too damned naive to be a Senator.

GAT_00:whistleridge: GAT_00: whistleridge: GAT_00:I think you're drawing far too fine of a line between Reagan and Metternich. Those two are very nearly the same, Reagan was trying to reinstall an old system. Just because he failed doesn't mean he wasn't a reactionary.

Reactionaries are merely a subset of conservatives.

I can see how you would say that. But I would argue that Reagan himself was relatively moderate - in fact, according to today's spectrum he would be solidly in the Democratic fold. It was the whole slew of people riding in on his coattails like William F. Buckley who were more conservative and even reactionary. Especially those who were basically trying to undo the Civil Rights Act, social security, and Johnson's Great Society. I would say Reagan didn't actually try to undo those things.

I hate to sound pedantic, but I think saying reactionaries are a subset of conservatives is like saying Nazis are a subset of socialists: yes, they look a lot alike on the surface, but the differences are real, substantive, and irreconcilable.

And you completely lost my attention with the Nazi/Socialist thing. Just because the word is in their name doesn't mean they are. See also the relationship between the words "People's," "Democratic," and "Republic" as compared with how free the country is. The more of those in the name, the closer it is to a dictatorship.

That was my point :p

Just because a lot of reactionaries call themselves conservatives and even think of themselves as conservatives doesn't mean they are conservatives. Obama's not a liberal. He's a center-right moderate. Norquist isn't a conservative. He's a piece of shiat racist reactionary. A conservative would someone more like Olympia Snowe.

The definition of a conservative is someone who refuses to change. Norquist is very much a conservative.

That's not exactly true. He would embrace change that would lower taxes to a lower amount, and he would support doing away with most, if not all, taxes. You see, he had a dream. As a young lad, he found a way to do what no other man or nation has ever been able to do: bring the United States to it's knees.

DeaH:GAT_00: whistleridge: GAT_00: whistleridge: GAT_00:I think you're drawing far too fine of a line between Reagan and Metternich. Those two are very nearly the same, Reagan was trying to reinstall an old system. Just because he failed doesn't mean he wasn't a reactionary.

Reactionaries are merely a subset of conservatives.

I can see how you would say that. But I would argue that Reagan himself was relatively moderate - in fact, according to today's spectrum he would be solidly in the Democratic fold. It was the whole slew of people riding in on his coattails like William F. Buckley who were more conservative and even reactionary. Especially those who were basically trying to undo the Civil Rights Act, social security, and Johnson's Great Society. I would say Reagan didn't actually try to undo those things.

I hate to sound pedantic, but I think saying reactionaries are a subset of conservatives is like saying Nazis are a subset of socialists: yes, they look a lot alike on the surface, but the differences are real, substantive, and irreconcilable.

And you completely lost my attention with the Nazi/Socialist thing. Just because the word is in their name doesn't mean they are. See also the relationship between the words "People's," "Democratic," and "Republic" as compared with how free the country is. The more of those in the name, the closer it is to a dictatorship.

That was my point :p

Just because a lot of reactionaries call themselves conservatives and even think of themselves as conservatives doesn't mean they are conservatives. Obama's not a liberal. He's a center-right moderate. Norquist isn't a conservative. He's a piece of shiat racist reactionary. A conservative would someone more like Olympia Snowe.

The definition of a conservative is someone who refuses to change. Norquist is very much a conservative.

That's not exactly true. He would embrace change that would lower taxes to a lower amount, and he would support doing away with most, if not all, taxes. You see, he had a dream. As a young lad, he found a way to do what no other man or nation has ever been able to do: bring the United States to it's knees.

DeaH:The president and the senate democrats are offering to make the Bush tax cuts permanent for everyone up to $250,000 of income. If the republicans don't act, then they are clearly saying that the tax cuts that benefit only the wealthy are more important that tax relief for the majority. This is a clear choice with a clear message.

And the Democrats holding out for those taxes are clearly saying that they're willing to burn down the economy in order to get their pound of flesh from a tiny group that they've demonized, even when the revenue derived would be so insignificant in the budget that it would be meaningless in reducing the deficit. That's the clear message, and if the Republicans had any sense they'd be putting it out there with everything they had.

jjorsett:DeaH: The president and the senate democrats are offering to make the Bush tax cuts permanent for everyone up to $250,000 of income. If the republicans don't act, then they are clearly saying that the tax cuts that benefit only the wealthy are more important that tax relief for the majority. This is a clear choice with a clear message.

And the Democrats holding out for those taxes are clearly saying that they're willing to burn down the economy in order to get their pound of flesh from a tiny group that they've demonized, even when the revenue derived would be so insignificant in the budget that it would be meaningless in reducing the deficit. That's the clear message, and if the Republicans had any sense they'd be putting it out there with everything they had.

jjorsett:whistleridge: "Even more than getting more revenues, (Democrats) want Republican fingerprints on tax increases so they can smash Republicans in the next series of elections."

No you blithering farkwad, they want to fix our broken finances. But your side is so caught up in the looting and pillaging that they just can't understand that. But the voters do. This past election showed that. And the coming election will show it even more.

No, YOU blithering farkwad, that's exactly what they want. Bush 1's "Read my lips, no new taxes" was thrown back in his face the instant he caved and agreed to raise taxes. The dems beat him with it at every opportunity in his reelection campaign. Any Republican thinking he can cut a deal with these people and not have it used against him is delusional and should be challenged in the primary because he's too damned naive to be a Senator.

Because he deserved it, and the Republicans this time will deserve it too for making rash thoughtless promises. They might as well take it like men and do some good with their time left instead of behaving like children and have to be dragged out kicking and screaming.

jjorsett:DeaH: The president and the senate democrats are offering to make the Bush tax cuts permanent for everyone up to $250,000 of income. If the republicans don't act, then they are clearly saying that the tax cuts that benefit only the wealthy are more important that tax relief for the majority. This is a clear choice with a clear message.

And the Democrats holding out for those taxes are clearly saying that they're willing to burn down the economy in order to get their pound of flesh from a tiny group that they've demonized, even when the revenue derived would be so insignificant in the budget that it would be meaningless in reducing the deficit. That's the clear message, and if the Republicans had any sense they'd be putting it out there with everything they had.

"Won't someone please take a moment to feel sorry for all the poor victimized billionaires?!"

I think you're right, dude. That sounds like a pretty good strategy for the Republicans. Much better than Romney's "I'm for the 100%" BS that nobody believed.

It's time the Dems dropped the hammer (heh) and exposed the GOP for what it is. A flailing horde of liars and ignorant old men, stuck in their ways and unwilling to help anyone but themselves and their donors. Watch them try vote in a raise for themselves above the rate of GDP growth yet again.

whistleridge:Just because a lot of reactionaries call themselves conservatives and even think of themselves as conservatives doesn't mean they are conservatives. Obama's not a liberal. He's a center-right moderate. Norquist isn't a conservative. He's a piece of shiat racist reactionary. A conservative would someone more like Olympia Snowe.

butin reagan's day, reagan was considered a staunch Conservative. god, country, anti-unions, anti-drugs, anti-choice, anti-democrat. pretty much the definition of "CONSERVATIVE" in this country.(yes, we all know that that means something else to the rest of the universe)

Pretty much all GOP leaders from reagan forward have not been conservatives. they have been increase spending, cut taxes reactionaries. The fact that they created fictions to "hide" or explain this doesnt really matter. "Deficits dont matter", "trickle-down", "starve the beast"

In the end, they lied, they were never conservative, other than in the crudest part of the social side of conservatism.

The best part is that there seems to be little or no effort to change their mantra. The party of greed will stay that way. Which is probably best for the country given that the we now have the centrist democrat party, which at least can act like adults.

jjorsett:No, YOU blithering farkwad, that's exactly what they want. Bush 1's "Read my lips, no new taxes" was thrown back in his face the instant he caved and agreed to raise taxes. The dems beat him with it at every opportunity in his reelection campaign. Any Republican thinking he can cut a deal with these people and not have it used against him is delusional and should be challenged in the primary because he's too damned naive to be a Senator.

The fact that the Republicans' idiocy has in fact placed them on the horns of a dilemma doesn't alter the fact that the left's primary goal is actually fixing our finances. And I don't say that because of their stated claims, I say that because of the inescapability of their math.

But if you're so defensive about the right, maybe you should think for a second: if doing what you've been doing causes your opponent to win and doing what he does causes him to win too...maybe you really suck at choosing what to do? Yeah, the Dems killed Bush when he hiked taxes, but is that the fault of the Dems for taking advantage of an opponent's tactical error, or is that his fault, for taking an untenable position in the first place? Because I would say it's #2 every time.

StinkyFiddlewinks:It's time the Dems dropped the hammer (heh) and exposed the GOP for what it is. A flailing horde of liars and ignorant old men, stuck in their ways and unwilling to help anyone but themselves and their donors. Watch them try vote in a raise for themselves above the rate of GDP growth yet again.

I thin Nov. 6 did that pretty well. Peter Sagal read a quote on Wait Wait a couple weeks ago from some Republican that said he thought the American people are for Republican ideas. Sagal's response was "if only there was some way for the American people recently to show us whose ideas they support more"

DeaH:The definition of a conservative is someone who refuses to change. Norquist is very much a conservative.

That's not exactly true. He would embrace change that would lower taxes to a lower amount, and he would support doing away with most, if not all, taxes. You see, he had a dream. As a young lad, he found a way to do what no other man or nation has ever been able to do: bring the United States to it's knees.

Change his ideas or way of thinking.He will never back down from his cut taxes pledge.His mind if CERTAIN of this idea.

That provision is to encourage people to give charitably, and I suppose the logic could be that because the money was given away, it ought not to count as your income, and that rich people wouldn't donate at all if they had to pay taxes on their donations.

Of course, that lead to rich people setting up their own "charities" and giving to themselves to deduct the taxes, and charitable deductions really don't matter unless you are rich.

Weaver95:yeah, but the GOP has to know something went wrong. it's the sort of thing they can't ignore no matter how much they try. they HAVE to accept Romney lost...which means someone has to be blamed for that loss.

But they have already identified who is to blame for the loss. Democrats, the media, and those damned Presidential gifts.

whistleridge:"Even more than getting more revenues, (Democrats) want Republican fingerprints on tax increases so they can smash Republicans in the next series of elections."

No you blithering farkwad, they want to fix our broken finances. But your side is so caught up in the looting and pillaging that they just can't understand that. But the voters do. This past election showed that. And the coming election will show it even more.

You don't get it, do you? Here's what's going to happen:

1. You and your ilk are going to up the derp to 11.2. Obama is going to say 'fine by me. No deal then' and go play golf.3. Jan 1 will happen. And he will get the revenue increases he wanted anyway.a. Congressional Dems will propose retroactive middle-class tax cuts after the Bush tax cuts expireb. Congressional Repubs will oppose these tax cuts, because they were the Dems' idea.4. And YOU will get killed in the next election, not the Democrats.

Remember 1998? Remember how you were just sure your impeaching of Clinton was going to win you all the things? Remember how bad it backfired? Voters can be dumb, but they're not that dumb. They know who is at fault here, and they know what the country needs.

These next two years are going to be derpy, but beautiful. I love watching hated idiots commit suicide publicly. It brings a warm glow to my heart.

DeaH:The president and the senate democrats are offering to make the Bush tax cuts permanent for everyone up to $250,000 of income. If the republicans don't act, then they are clearly saying that the tax cuts that benefit only the wealthy are more important that tax relief for the majority. This is a clear choice with a clear message.

Unfortunately, if history is any indication, the Democratic Congressional leadership will completely and utterly fail to capitalize on this as a talking point.

jjorsett:whistleridge: "Even more than getting more revenues, (Democrats) want Republican fingerprints on tax increases so they can smash Republicans in the next series of elections."

No you blithering farkwad, they want to fix our broken finances. But your side is so caught up in the looting and pillaging that they just can't understand that. But the voters do. This past election showed that. And the coming election will show it even more.

No, YOU blithering farkwad, that's exactly what they want. Bush 1's "Read my lips, no new taxes" was thrown back in his face the instant he caved and agreed to raise taxes. The dems beat him with it at every opportunity in his reelection campaign. Any Republican thinking he can cut a deal with these people and not have it used against him is delusional and should be challenged in the primary because he's too damned naive to be a Senator.

The problem with this is that the GOP has a built in excuse for denying the pledge. All the candidate has to say is that due to voters ultimately choosing to elect people that would be open to raising taxes, they're changing their position to ultimately better represent the electorate. Boom, done.

jjorsett:DeaH: The president and the senate democrats are offering to make the Bush tax cuts permanent for everyone up to $250,000 of income. If the republicans don't act, then they are clearly saying that the tax cuts that benefit only the wealthy are more important that tax relief for the majority. This is a clear choice with a clear message.

And the Democrats holding out for those taxes are clearly saying that they're willing to burn down the economy in order to get their pound of flesh from a tiny group that they've demonized, even when the revenue derived would be so insignificant in the budget that it would be meaningless in reducing the deficit. That's the clear message, and if the Republicans had any sense they'd be putting it out there with everything they had.

Awww, pity the poor rich people, whose ridiculous tax cut was approved and then extended with the help of Democrats. Now those evil Demonrats want to let them expire like they were meant to in the first place. Those meanies!!

TheOther:And isn't time to do away with the whole 'charitable contribution' deduction.Charitable donations should be 'in addition to', not 'instead of' paying your goddam taxes.

this - just include some number as part of the standard deduction. Anything above that amount is still taxable.

theknuckler_33:The wilful ignorance of this guy and people like him is staggering. Continuing to be uncompromising petulant children is what is going to get Republicans smashed in the next series of elections.

I hope so. But it will also require that the dems run electable candidates.

Summoner101:jjorsett: whistleridge: "Even more than getting more revenues, (Democrats) want Republican fingerprints on tax increases so they can smash Republicans in the next series of elections."

No you blithering farkwad, they want to fix our broken finances. But your side is so caught up in the looting and pillaging that they just can't understand that. But the voters do. This past election showed that. And the coming election will show it even more.

No, YOU blithering farkwad, that's exactly what they want. Bush 1's "Read my lips, no new taxes" was thrown back in his face the instant he caved and agreed to raise taxes. The dems beat him with it at every opportunity in his reelection campaign. Any Republican thinking he can cut a deal with these people and not have it used against him is delusional and should be challenged in the primary because he's too damned naive to be a Senator.

The problem with this is that the GOP has a built in excuse for denying the pledge. All the congressman has to say is that due to voters ultimately choosing to elect people that would be open to raising taxes, they're changing their position to ultimately better represent the electorate. Boom, done.

jjorsett:DeaH: The president and the senate democrats are offering to make the Bush tax cuts permanent for everyone up to $250,000 of income. If the republicans don't act, then they are clearly saying that the tax cuts that benefit only the wealthy are more important that tax relief for the majority. This is a clear choice with a clear message.

And the Democrats holding out for those taxes are clearly saying that they're willing to burn down the economy in order to get their pound of flesh from a tiny group that they've demonized, even when the revenue derived would be so insignificant in the budget that it would be meaningless in reducing the deficit. That's the clear message, and if the Republicans had any sense they'd be putting it out there with everything they had.

Got any figures for how 'insignificant' that increased revenue would be? Because it would be interesting to compare the increased revenue from those tax increases to the savings from, say cutting funding for NPR and PBS. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that the increased revenue will be FAR more than the savings from those things.

1. You and your ilk are going to up the derp to 11.2. Obama is going to say 'fine by me. No deal then' and go play golf.3. Jan 1 will happen. And he will get the revenue increases he wanted anyway.a. Congressional Dems will propose retroactive middle-class tax cuts after the Bush tax cuts expireb. Congressional Repubs will oppose these tax cuts, because they were the Dems' idea.c. They won't pass the House, and will so become an albatross that the Dems will happily hang around your neck in 20144. And YOU will get killed in the next election, not the Democrats.

Remember 1998? Remember how you were just sure your impeaching of Clinton was going to win you all the things? Remember how bad it backfired? Voters can be dumb, but they're not that dumb. They know who is at fault here, and they know what the country needs.

These next two years are going to be derpy, but beautiful. I love watching hated idiots commit suicide publicly. It brings a warm glow to my heart.

jjorsett:DeaH: The president and the senate democrats are offering to make the Bush tax cuts permanent for everyone up to $250,000 of income. If the republicans don't act, then they are clearly saying that the tax cuts that benefit only the wealthy are more important that tax relief for the majority. This is a clear choice with a clear message.

And the Democrats holding out for those taxes are clearly saying that they're willing to burn down the economy in order to get their pound of flesh from a tiny group that they've demonized, even when the revenue derived would be so insignificant in the budget that it would be meaningless in reducing the deficit. That's the clear message, and if the Republicans had any sense they'd be putting it out there with everything they had.

Except even the rich get tax cuts from the Democrats plan, so that kind of kills your argument.

this guy truly wants to roll everything back before Teddy and the Progressive Republicans and that's scary. is 21st century america ready for dirt streets and homeless veterans begging everywhere again? the 12 hour 6 day work week? dead rat poo poison in our food? yay?

jjorsett:And the DemocratsRepublicans holding out for those taxestax cuts are clearly saying that they're willing to burn down the economy in order to get their pound of flesh from a tiny group that they've demonized (ie: Anyone not rich), even when the revenue derived would be so insignificant in the budget that it would be meaningless in reducing the deficit. That's the clear message, and if the RepublicansDemocrats had any sense they'd be putting it out there with everything they had.

FTFY

You're defending a group that's trying to protect tax cuts while simultaneously trying to balance the budget. In other words, you're defending a group of people who suck at math.